Top federal prosecutor in LA not legally serving, judge rules
I keep coming back to the phrase "de facto" in the judge's order. That's a polite way of saying the person running the biggest federal prosecutor's office in the state might not have had the legal standing to do it. If the ruling holds, every major decision Essayli signed off on could be open to second-guessing, which is a headache no district wants.
The appointment mechanics matter here. There's a specific statutory path for naming an acting U.S. Attorney, and the judge says that path wasn't followed. I'd want to know whether this was an honest mix-up or a deliberate end-run around the confirmation process, because those are very different failures with different remedies.
What makes this more than a Beltway squabble is the practical fallout. Federal prosecutions in the Central District cover a huge population, and defendants have a real interest in whether the person who charged them was legitimately in the job. I don't have a strong take on Essayli himself, but I'd like to see the government explain the timeline of who appointed him and when. That answer will tell us whether this was a paperwork slip or something closer to a constitutional test.